President, Ekam Sanatan Bharat

Ankur Sharma

Ankur Sharma was born in 1986 in the Kathua district of Jammu & Kashmir. Both his parents have worked with the State Government. He completed his schooling in Kathua. After finishing school, he went to Pune for higher studies, where he completed B.E. in Software Engineering ( I.T. ) from the University of Pune. He then secured a LLB degree from the Faculty of Law, Delhi University. After obtaining a law degree, he started practicing in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. As time progressed, Ankur Sharma began taking strong stand against many anti-Hindu laws legislated against the National interest.

His Cases

Listed below are some of the cases which Ankur Sharma has filed in various Indian courts.

  • 2014

    Land Scam

    Jammu and Kashmir High Court
    In 2014, he filed CMP-48 of 2014 in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court regarding the Rs 25,000 crore Land Scam related to the conferment of ownership rights of Government Lands. Under its aegis, Ankur Sharma requested the High Court to hand over the investigation of this scam to the CBI. And finally, in October 2020, while giving its verdict, the court handed over the investigation of this case to the CBI. The land scam in Jammu and Kashmir was directly linked to the Land Jihad aimed at rapidly changing the Hindu majority Demography.
  • 2014

    Roshni Act

    Jammu and Kashmir High Court
    Challenging the constitutional validity of the Roshni Act, Ankur Sharma filed PIL 41/2014 in the Jammu wing of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court titled ‘Ankur Sharma vs state of J&k and others’. This case also went on for 6 years and finally the decision came in favor of Ankur Sharma. Under the Roshni Act, there was a provision to give ownership rights to those who illegally occupied government land. This was a law intending the Islamization of Jammu and Kashmir.
  • 2016

    No Minority Status for Muslims

    Supreme Court
    In June 2016, Ankur Sharma filed a PIL in the Supreme Court, in which he argued that Muslims constitute majority in Jammu and Kashmir, so they should not be given minority status (PIL 489/2016, Ankur Sharma Vs Union of India and Others). In this case too, the decision went in favor of Ankur Sharma which ironically remains unimplemented on ground by the Central Govt, thanks to their policy of ‘Triptikaran’.
  • 2016

    Against State Control of Hindu Temples

    Jammu and Kashmir High Court
    Ankur Sharma is contesting a case in J&K High Court challenging the state control of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Ji Shrine. The BJP Govt representing the State has taken a stand that Hindus cannot be given control of Mata Vaishno Devi Ji Shrine. The case is in its final stages of arguments before the High Court. Apart from this, awareness and mobilisation on the issue through Public meetings, protests is also something that cadres of IkkJutt Jammu Party are continuously engaged in.
  • 2018

    Executive Jihad

    Jammu and Kashmir High Court
    In 2018, Ankur Sharma exposed Bureaucratic Jihad in Jammu and Kashmir. Ankur Sharma shared a secret classified document dated 14.02.2018 of the Jammu and Kashmir Government in the public domain through a press conference.. Through this order, the Chief Minister of the PDP-BJP Government had allowed the Tribal Muslims to illegally encroach Lands and engage in Cow Slaughter & Bovine Smuggling. District Magistrates & SSPs had been categorically directed to not take any legal action against such Muslims.
  • 2018

    Defended Dogra and Hindu Pride

    Supreme Court
    Ankur Sarma defended Dogra and Hindu pride in the defamation of Hindus and of Dogras unleashed by the establishment in the kathua child murder case. Then, regarding the infamous Kathua child murder case too, Ankur Sharma demanded from the Supreme Court, that a CBI inquiry be conducted in this case. However, his demand was rejected. Ankur Sharma did a lot of groundwork regarding how the Kathua rape case was a big conspiracy by the Jihadis to tarnish the image of Sanatan civilization and culture.
“The Roshni Act was declared unconstitutional, and lands alloted in the act were ordered to be retrieved back”